Legal Opinion

Metalclad Corp. v. Ventana Environmental Organizational Partnership

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 30, 2003No. G029970PublishedCited by 74 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ARONSON, J.

Ventana Environmental Organizational Partnership, L.P. (VEOP), North American Environmental Fund, L.P. (NAEF), and Ventana Global Limited, a holding company allegedly controlling both entities (collectively Ventana) appeal from an order denying their petition to compel arbitration. Ventana contends the trial court erred in refusing to compel Metalclad Corporation to arbitrate under a written contract with Ventana’s subsidiary. Ventana is not a signatory to that document, but asserts the doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes Metalclad from raising Ventana’s nonsignatory…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  3. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Perry v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, L.L.C.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by74 opinions

  1. Jessica Kramer v. Toyota Motor CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  2. Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  3. Goldman v. KPMG, LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  4. John Murphy v. Directv, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  5. Molecular Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010

69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API